No he wasn't. He was hinting people should shoot the future president of the United States. It was clear in its meaning.

Yes it was clear in its meaning, and it's meaning was that advocates for the second amendment could use their considerable political influence to alter the course of events, as they have done in the past.

Matthew Ellard wrote:The really bad thing is the USA is not doing anything about this as a unified country that offers itself as a model for younger democracies.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Are you kidding me?? After what happened to JFK, RFK, and Reagan,

They are not running in this election nor get exposure on younger democracy television sets and media.

So are you saying that those "younger democracy television sets and media" are too "young" for historical documentaries, or are you saying that people of these "younger democracies" are too naive/primitive/stupid to know what a history book is?

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:How does Australia lose out?? Last time I checked it was an independent country with a completely different political system from that of the US.

ANZUS The military treaty between the USA, Australia and New Zealand, You don't have the world biggest Muslim country as a neighbour. We do. Australia and New Zealand keep it calm. Trump is not helping our calming policies.

What has Trump done to antagonise Indonesia? What indications are there that he would do any such thing? Why would Indonesia get mad at Australia for something that another country does? Unless, perhaps, Australia was effectively a vassal state of that other country and didn't have the guts to go against its master under any circumstances...

Matthew Ellard wrote:Trump states that USA allies will help pay for the USA's extended deterrence that helps protects us. Does that mean Australia also gets the two keys to the President's nuclear football?

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Hey, if you don't want to pay you can always try standing on your own two military feet. Or you could try cosying up to China (let us know how that works out for you).

Firstly, we do stand on our own two feet. I didn't see the USA fighting in Indonesia and Malaya, yet here was ANZACs happily helping the USA in Vietnam. Secondly we have already been "cosying" up to China for twenty years.

No you don't stand on your own two feet. If you stood on your own too feet then you wouldn't need the ANZUS treaty, you wouldn't respond to every US request to jump by asking "how high?" (like you did in Vietnam, and Iraq, and Afghanistan), and you'd probably have your own damn nukes as well. The idea that you have been cosying up to China is laughable - unless your idea of cosying up to China includes hosting US military installations on your own soil and disagreeing with China's claims over the South China Sea.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:No you don't get control over the US nuclear arsenal, and why would you??

Because Trump wants us to pay for it. It's that simple.

Where has Trump said he wants you to pay for the USA's nuclear arsenal? He said he wants US allies to pay for US military protection rather than free-ride off it. The logistical details of how the US provides that protection are beside the point; demanding control over the US nuclear arsenal in this context makes no more sense than a person demanding control over the guns of the security personnel they've hired.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:If being under the US military/nuclear umbrella isn't enough for you free-riders, then go and build your own nukes!

...and are you going to build another Pine Gap and Jindalee Radar system that can see stealth aircraft? Good luck..

No, why would we do that?

So as NATO and ANZUS slowly set into the sun under Trump and new economic alliances form away from USA participation, has it occurred to you that next time the USA gets into a quagmire that Australia and New Zealand may not be so willing to help out?

So what?? The last time you guys helped us out in a genuinely legitimate military venture was the Korean War and WW2. Your contribution in the former conflict was incidental, and in the case of the latter you were under far greater threat than us.

So far Trump's had nothing but bad weeks according to the mainstream enemedia's propaganda war against him...

Wow, you have really swallowed the FOX kool-aid, haven't you?

I don't watch or read FOX.

You sure spout it though. What conspiracy site did you get it from?

I didn't get it from any "conspiracy site", I have just compared what the mainstream enemedia says about him versus what he actually says and does.

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Where do you think terms like "enemedia" came from?

I don't know Gord, how about you tell me specifically who coined the term, with reference to a reliable source. Frankly I don't give a damn where it came from - I use the term because I consider it to be apt, and if I hadn't gotten it from someone else then there's a pretty good chance I would have eventually come up with it myself.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Mark Twain

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Yes it was clear in its meaning, and it's meaning was that advocates for the second amendment could use their considerable political influence to alter the course of events, as they have done in the past.

Nope.

the quote is;"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

This clearly refers to a scenario when all the legal hurdles to gun control have been overcome: she got to pick her judges on the Supreme Court, which will uphold her gun policies. And Trump assumes she will have to power to abolish the Amendment, i.e. have the sufficient majorities.

That is the point where the statement starts, after all legal challenges have failed.

So it's clearly a call on pro-gun activists to use illegal means to stop the process, implying that voting for Clinton would lead to a series of assassinations that would destabilize the country.

Why is it that Trump can not make a single speech without armies of supporters having to steelman everything he says?The amount of innuendo itself is a clear sign that he is unqualified as president.

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

Come November we will know if the US needs to refight the Civil War. But I do have faith in Americans, and predict that even in Louisiana, voters will do the right thing, and send him back to his hate wallow.

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke has recorded a robocall touting his candidacy for Senate in Louisiana, and in the recorded message he explicitly ties his campaign to Donald Trump's. Duke has been piggybacking on Trump's increasingly prominent campaign for months; this winter, Trump was forced to disavow Duke's endorsement several times after initially offering a muddled response.

TJrandom wrote:Come November we will know if the US needs to refight the Civil War. But I do have faith in Americans, and predict that even in Louisiana, voters will do the right thing, and send him back to his hate wallow.

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke has recorded a robocall touting his candidacy for Senate in Louisiana, and in the recorded message he explicitly ties his campaign to Donald Trump's. Duke has been piggybacking on Trump's increasingly prominent campaign for months; this winter, Trump was forced to disavow Duke's endorsement several times after initially offering a muddled response.

refight the civil war ? you mean exterminate the remaining minority of stupid whites ?

for the real minority ; there will be no justice , there will be no peace . makes sense 2me , so it has 2be wrong .

I guess we can expect similar attempts on President Clinton. But it seems that the Secret Service can deal with them.

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke has recorded a robocall touting his candidacy for Senate in Louisiana, and in the recorded message he explicitly ties his campaign to Donald Trump's. Duke has been piggybacking on Trump's increasingly prominent campaign for months; this winter, Trump was forced to disavow Duke's endorsement several times after initially offering a muddled response.

I'm suspicious that this is a load of hogwash.

Firstly David Duke lives in Austria, yet a senator yet the senate laws state "They have to be an "inhabitant" of the state "when elected." and therefore this would come to a senate vote based on the facts.

Secondly David Duke has criminal convictions. In the US Senate a convicted criminal is allowed to be a candidate however, the Senate can vote to expel a member who is not a fit or proper person. It is unlikely that Democrats or Republicans would vote in Duke's favour.

In essence Duke is simply garnering attention for StormFront, the neo-nazi organisation that he is connected to.

psychiatry is a scam wrote: you mean exterminate the remaining minority of stupid whites ?

No, the neo-Nazis do not care if you are white, if you are simply mad. They will simply put you down for your medical condition. The people Hitler executed before Jews, Russian and Gypsies, were all sick Aryan "whites".

Didn't you know that? You're on David Duke's list of people who need to be removed from society.

The programme ran officially from September 1939 to August 1941, during which the recorded 70,273 people were killed at various extermination centres located at psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, along with those in occupied Poland.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke has recorded a robocall touting his candidacy for Senate in Louisiana, and in the recorded message he explicitly ties his campaign to Donald Trump's. Duke has been piggybacking on Trump's increasingly prominent campaign for months; this winter, Trump was forced to disavow Duke's endorsement several times after initially offering a muddled response.

I'm suspicious that this is a load of hogwash.

Firstly David Duke lives in Austria, yet a senator yet the senate laws state "They have to be an "inhabitant" of the state "when elected." and therefore this would come to a senate vote based on the facts.

Secondly David Duke has criminal convictions. In the US Senate a convicted criminal is allowed to be a candidate however, the Senate can vote to expel a member who is not a fit or proper person. It is unlikely that Democrats or Republicans would vote in Duke's favour.

In essence Duke is simply garnering attention for StormFront, the neo-nazi organisation that he is connected to.

There must be more than one David Duke... Here is snopes on this POS...

TJrandom wrote:There must be more than one David Duke... Here is snopes on this POS...

It is the same David Duke and he has a habit of these tricks.

His bird photography shop is still open in Salzburg, Austria. It is actually the German BND that worries about him more today, as he sneaks into German cities with anti-holocaust denial laws, from Austria.

He has already been in gaol for a year in the USA, for his last attempt to join Congress and is thus "not a fit and proper person'.

David Duke Pleads Guilty To Tax Charge And Fraud (2002)Mr. Duke was accused of telling supporters that he was in financial straits, then misusing the money they sent him from 1993 to 1999. Mr. Duke used the money for personal investments and gambling trips to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Las Vegas and the Bahamas, the United States attorney, Jim Letten, said. Mr. Letten would not disclose the amount but said it was ''in the six-figure area.''

"The plea to felony charges also disqualifies Mr. Duke from running for public office again."

psychiatry is a scam wrote: you mean exterminate the remaining minority of stupid whites ?

No, the neo-Nazis do not care if you are white, if you are simply mad. They will simply put you down for your medical condition. The people Hitler executed before Jews, Russian and Gypsies, were all sick Aryan "whites".

Didn't you know that? You're on David Duke's list of people who need to be removed from society.

The programme ran officially from September 1939 to August 1941, during which the recorded 70,273 people were killed at various extermination centres located at psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, along with those in occupied Poland.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

yes I know I am hated by everyone - think I mentioned that in one of my rants about trump .

interesting link , wonder why the word consumer is not mentioned ?actually the ideas expressed in that link , still exist today in modern psychiatry .

TJrandom wrote:Come November we will know if the US needs to refight the Civil War. But I do have faith in Americans, and predict that even in Louisiana, voters will do the right thing, and send him back to his hate wallow.

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke has recorded a robocall touting his candidacy for Senate in Louisiana, and in the recorded message he explicitly ties his campaign to Donald Trump's. Duke has been piggybacking on Trump's increasingly prominent campaign for months; this winter, Trump was forced to disavow Duke's endorsement several times after initially offering a muddled response.

refight the civil war ? you mean exterminate the remaining minority of stupid whites ?

TJrandom wrote:On the other hand - with Trump as the Republican candidate, Micky Mouse would have made an acceptable opposition candidate.

Yet here he is. He beat Kasich. He pwnd Bush. He even beat Ted (I'm a Christian honest) Cruz.

It's hilarious as this week a lot of right wing radio talk pundits have started arguing, whereas before they would almost always support the right wing candidate. YouTube it. Sean Hannity Glen beck and Rush Limbaugh are all at each others throats atm over trump.

Dumb arguments seem to attract even dumber people to argue; and eventually at the botton of the barrel Sean Hannity pipes up.

TJrandom wrote:On the other hand - with Trump as the Republican candidate, Micky Mouse would have made an acceptable opposition candidate.

Yet here he is. He beat Kasich. He pwnd Bush. He even beat Ted (I'm a Christian honest) Cruz.

It's hilarious as this week a lot of right wing radio talk pundits have started arguing, whereas before they would almost always support the right wing candidate. YouTube it. Sean Hannity Glen beck and Rush Limbaugh are all at each others throats atm over trump.

Dumb arguments seem to attract even dumber people to argue; and eventually at the botton of the barrel Sean Hannity pipes up.

That's saying something. The competition for the bottom of that barrel is fierce.

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Hilary and Trump at the same unfavorability rating amoungst registered voters, in the same week when Trump is constantly {!#%@} up, sacking his staff, saying outrageous things, and doing endless ridiculous gaffes. Meanwhile somehow in that time Hilary has made such a weak impression shes losing ground to him. As I said before in this thread, her name recognition is wearing off. The more people get to know her the worse she does. This is a trend that can be followed for the last 6-12 months. To an even larger extent the last eight years.

Bernie Sanders remains the most liked politican in the USA. By any metric or poll I have seen (apart from obviously some primaries where the majority of people watch corporate TV or newspapers; rather than use social media or the interwebz)

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Yes it was clear in its meaning, and it's meaning was that advocates for the second amendment could use their considerable political influence to alter the course of events, as they have done in the past.

Nope.

the quote is;"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

This clearly refers to a scenario when all the legal hurdles to gun control have been overcome: she got to pick her judges on the Supreme Court, which will uphold her gun policies. And Trump assumes she will have to power to abolish the Amendment, i.e. have the sufficient majorities.

That is the point where the statement starts, after all legal challenges have failed.

So it's clearly a call on pro-gun activists to use illegal means to stop the process, implying that voting for Clinton would lead to a series of assassinations that would destabilize the country.

Trump's full statement was:

“Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Okay, let's step back and try to rationally analyse this statement, shall we? The key premise in this statement is that IF Hillary gets to pick (Supreme Court) judges, then she will pick judges who will essentially allow her to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Now, what would Hillary need in order to get to pick Supreme Court judges? That's right, she needs to be President of the United States. Alright then, how could Hillary become President of the United States? She could do so by winning the 2016 US Presidential election.

So, Trump's statement refers to a hypothetical scenario in which Hillary has already beaten him in the election to become President of the United States. Now given that Trump holds no political office, and given that the he would most certainly not be handed the Presidency if President Hillary snuffed it mid-term, it is quite clear that Trump would have nothing to gain politically from Hillary being assassinated after she had already been elected President!

Now let's think about this from the viewpoint of the "2nd Amendment people". If a President Hillary tried to destroy the 2nd Amendment, how would we expect gun rights advocates to respond? Well, in the aggregate we would expect them to take political action, and we would expect some of them to be inclined to take matters 'into their own hands'. Would we expect an offhand comment made by some unsuccessful Presidential candidate one or more years earlier to have any bearing on how they decide to respond? Of course not.

The key point that Trump was trying to make here was that this hypothetical scenario doesn't have to become reality if enough people, including and especially gun rights advocates, vote for him in this Presidential election. Trump was not calling for Hillary's assassination - on the contrary, if anything he was trying to prevent her from getting into a situation where her own actions would significantly increase her risk of being targeted by assassins.

Why is it that Trump can not make a single speech without armies of supporters having to steelman everything he says?

Why is it that libtards have no grasp of logic?

The amount of innuendo itself is a clear sign that he is unqualified as president.

If anyone would like to understand and judge Trump's platform for themselves rather than guzzling Clinton News Network's Koolaid, a full transcript of Trump's 31 August 2016 on his immigration policy is available here.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Okay, let's step back and try to rationally analyse this statement, shall we? The key premise in this statement is that IF Hillary gets to pick (Supreme Court) judges, then she will pick judges who will essentially allow her to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Now, what would Hillary need in order to get to pick Supreme Court judges? That's right, she needs to be President of the United States. Alright then, how could Hillary become President of the United States? She could do so by winning the 2016 US Presidential election.

So, Trump's statement refers to a hypothetical scenario in which Hillary has already beaten him in the election to become President of the United States.

so far so good

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: Now given that Trump holds no political office, and given that the he would most certainly not be handed the Presidency if President Hillary snuffed it mid-term, it is quite clear that Trump would have nothing to gain politically from Hillary being assassinated after she had already been elected President!

what does that have to do with the premise? Nothing.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Now let's think about this from the viewpoint of the "2nd Amendment people". If a President Hillary tried to destroy the 2nd Amendment, how would we expect gun rights advocates to respond? Well, in the aggregate we would expect them to take political action, and we would expect some of them to be inclined to take matters 'into their own hands'. Would we expect an offhand comment made by some unsuccessful Presidential candidate one or more years earlier to have any bearing on how they decide to respond? Of course not.

So your argument is: gun nuts will do what they want, so endorsing them doesn't matter. I wonder how you would feel about Clinton taking a similar stance on violent Muslim extremists?

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:The key point that Trump was trying to make here was that this hypothetical scenario doesn't have to become reality if enough people, including and especially gun rights advocates, vote for him in this Presidential election.

Nope, As you yourself said above, Trump was referring to a scenario win which Clinton had already won. Of course the larger point was supposed to be: don't let it get that far. But he put in the caveat: even if he doesn't get elected, gun-nuts might still stop Clinton by murdering her and her Supreme Court judges.As I mentioned: his point was: vote for me, or our country will see a wave of assassinations.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Trump was not calling for Hillary's assassination - on the contrary, if anything he was trying to prevent her from getting into a situation where her own actions would significantly increase her risk of being targeted by assassins.

Ah - the old "Hey, I'm just saying! If you do this, it will make some very violent people very unhappy - it would be a shame if something bad happened to you or your friends."Congratulations! You've just compared Trump to a Mafia enforcer !

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:If anyone would like to understand and judge Trump's platform for themselves rather than guzzling Clinton News Network's Koolaid, a full transcript of Trump's 31 August 2016 on his immigration policy is available here.

hey, no doubt it was a good speech, his best so far.

Above all, it was pretty much internally consistent.

It's just that he focuses on a small problem when there are so much bigger ones: - every study finds that illegal immigrants' pay for themselves with the taxes they pay. In fact, they have to pay for social security even though they are not eligible for it. The support Trump mentioned was for US-born children in these households, not the illegals.- immigration from Mexico is declining, and has been for a while: both legal and illegal- illegals are less, not more likely to be criminals (apart from being illegally here, which of course is a crime)- all his proposed measures (wall, deportation, blocking remittances) are simply not feasible: it doesn't matter how many times he repeats them, they are just money-wasters to create the appearance of doing something. They do not fix the underlying problems at all- analysis by Gallup of thousands of poll between 2015 and 16 showed that the closer you live to the Mexican border, the less likely you are to support Trump's policies. As with resistance to immigration anywhere, it's those who are least affected that are concerned the most- most Republicans support a path to citizenship: again, Trump focuses on a radical subgroup to take him seriously whilst hoping that the rest of the GOP will not

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

Teknically, he shoud be in prizon for this. Therez at least a dozen chargez per girl and hundredz uv girlz.

You don't understand, do you? the employers are voters Americans and therefore blameless. The illegal employees are foreigners and therefore guilty.

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

That reminds me of contracts that actors sign when they join the cast of a movie.

Monster wrote: That reminds me of contracts that actors sign when they join the cast of a movie.

Actors get paid and thus there is "consideration" and a contract exists.

However, the Trump NDA appear to cover non paid volunteers as well as paid workers. I'm not sure if the Trump NDA is legally effective and binding on non paid volunteers. If there is no "consideration" there is no contract.

Normally there is a clause saying "for consideration of $1, you agree to..."

The American and Australian governments, thought so. That's why they were there fighting together. Did you forget?

You are also probably totally unaware that Australia was simultaneously fighting together with the UK in Malaya and on our own in Indonesia, (which we won) at the same time. Considering that Australia won in Malaya and Indonesia using its own anti-communist insurgency techniques and intelligence, the USA military still has a lot to learn from us more experienced smaller nations.

Now, are you still standing with your peer, Trump, demanding that Australia contributes to the USA's nuclear deterrence cost, yet denied any say in how these things are used? Has it occurred to you that Australia has done very well without nuclear weapons and is actually friendly with your enemies, China and Russia?

Just out of interest, when is your beloved Trump going to cancel military aid to Israel and start charging them, like he will for Australia? He hasn't been exactly clear on that, has he? Can you think of a reason for that?

When President Trump asks for a contribution, I think Australia will pass on that request. You can keep your nukes.

I tried finding a similar NDA for Hillary volunteers and staff, and found no such thing. However, I didn't look very hard. There is a terms of service on the website though. That's not quite the same thing though.

No Competitive Services. Until the Non-Compete Cutoff Date you promise and agree not to assist or counsel, directly or indirectly, for compensation or as a volunteer, any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump and to prevent your employees from doing so.

So far Trump's had nothing but bad weeks according to the mainstream enemedia's propaganda war against him...

Wow, you have really swallowed the FOX kool-aid, haven't you?

I don't watch or read FOX.

You sure spout it though. What conspiracy site did you get it from?

I didn't get it from any "conspiracy site", I have just compared what the mainstream enemedia says about him versus what he actually says and does.

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

Where do you think terms like "enemedia" came from?

I don't know Gord

Yes you do, I just told you.

...how about you tell me specifically who coined the term, with reference to a reliable source.

Why does the person who originally coined a specific term matter? The important source is the one that keeps pumping it out into common parlance.

Frankly I don't give a damn where it came from - I use the term because I consider it to be apt, and if I hadn't gotten it from someone else then there's a pretty good chance I would have eventually come up with it myself.

You got it from a conspiracy site, which was my original point. Despite your professed belief to the contrary, you wouldn't have come up with it yourself, just as you wouldn't have invented automatic windows for your car or tinfoil hats for your head.

Trumps official now. He went to Mexico to speak to the president there, after both him and her got invited. Whereas Hillary would have needed days of preparation to stage such an event and rigorously script and plan it, Trump got the phonecall tuesday and flew out the next day for the meeting, so ended up looking all presidential infront of the mainstream media.

lel

[questionable how presidential, if you actually listened to what he said, as he still sounds like a 13 yr old; but the optics were very good for him]

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Okay, let's step back and try to rationally analyse this statement, shall we? The key premise in this statement is that IF Hillary gets to pick (Supreme Court) judges, then she will pick judges who will essentially allow her to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Now, what would Hillary need in order to get to pick Supreme Court judges? That's right, she needs to be President of the United States. Alright then, how could Hillary become President of the United States? She could do so by winning the 2016 US Presidential election.

So, Trump's statement refers to a hypothetical scenario in which Hillary has already beaten him in the election to become President of the United States.

so far so good

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: Now given that Trump holds no political office, and given that the he would most certainly not be handed the Presidency if President Hillary snuffed it mid-term, it is quite clear that Trump would have nothing to gain politically from Hillary being assassinated after she had already been elected President!

what does that have to do with the premise? Nothing.

It has everything to do with it.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Now let's think about this from the viewpoint of the "2nd Amendment people". If a President Hillary tried to destroy the 2nd Amendment, how would we expect gun rights advocates to respond? Well, in the aggregate we would expect them to take political action, and we would expect some of them to be inclined to take matters 'into their own hands'. Would we expect an offhand comment made by some unsuccessful Presidential candidate one or more years earlier to have any bearing on how they decide to respond? Of course not.

So your argument is: gun nuts will do what they want, so endorsing them doesn't matter. I wonder how you would feel about Clinton taking a similar stance on violent Muslim extremists?

No, my argument is that literally saying "I don't know" how particular people *might* respond in a particular situation is not the same as endorsing a particular type of response in that situation - especially when the person saying "I don't know" would have nothing to gain from the particular type of response in question!

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:The key point that Trump was trying to make here was that this hypothetical scenario doesn't have to become reality if enough people, including and especially gun rights advocates, vote for him in this Presidential election.

Nope, As you yourself said above, Trump was referring to a scenario win which Clinton had already won. Of course the larger point was supposed to be: don't let it get that far. But he put in the caveat: even if he doesn't get elected, gun-nuts might still stop Clinton by murdering her and her Supreme Court judges.As I mentioned: his point was: vote for me, or our country will see a wave of assassinations.

First you say "nope" and then you agree with me, make up your mind! He made no such point, and if you think that he did then you are reading your own prejudice and paranoid fantasies into his words.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Trump was not calling for Hillary's assassination - on the contrary, if anything he was trying to prevent her from getting into a situation where her own actions would significantly increase her risk of being targeted by assassins.

Ah - the old "Hey, I'm just saying! If you do this, it will make some very violent people very unhappy - it would be a shame if something bad happened to you or your friends."Congratulations! You've just compared Trump to a Mafia enforcer !

No I haven't. When a Mafia enforcer says something like that, the implication is that he will be actively involved in arranging for "something bad" to happen to you or your friends. This is simply not the case with Trump; if he loses the election then he has nothing to gain from Hillary's assassination from that point on. Ergo, Trump's comment is a vague observation at most.

No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

Sounds fair enough, at least it doesn't threaten to crush your throat with a bar bell if you try to testify against him.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Mark Twain

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:If anyone would like to understand and judge Trump's platform for themselves rather than guzzling Clinton News Network's Koolaid, a full transcript of Trump's 31 August 2016 on his immigration policy is available here.

hey, no doubt it was a good speech, his best so far.

Above all, it was pretty much internally consistent.

It's just that he focuses on a small problem when there are so much bigger ones: - every study finds that illegal immigrants' pay for themselves with the taxes they pay.

Where's your source?

- immigration from Mexico is declining, and has been for a while: both legal and illegal

Where's your source?

- illegals are less, not more likely to be criminals (apart from being illegally here, which of course is a crime)

So they are in fact MORE likely to be criminals then. The fact that some of them commit other crimes only serves to further highlight the problem of letting illegals into the country in the first place.

- all his proposed measures (wall, deportation, blocking remittances) are simply not feasible: it doesn't matter how many times he repeats them, they are just money-wasters to create the appearance of doing something. They do not fix the underlying problems at all

How do you know they're not feasible? Do you realise that both Bill and Hillary have suggested similar measures to deal with illegal immigration in years past? What "underlying problems" need to be fixed, what are their solutions and how do you know that they more feasible that what Trump is proposing?

- analysis by Gallup of thousands of poll between 2015 and 16 showed that the closer you live to the Mexican border, the less likely you are to support Trump's policies. As with resistance to immigration anywhere, it's those who are least affected that are concerned the most

Where's your source?

- most Republicans support a path to citizenship: again, Trump focuses on a radical subgroup to take him seriously whilst hoping that the rest of the GOP will not

Where's your source?

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Mark Twain

VKTW, all my points have sources, but I seriously doubt it would make any difference to you.If anyone else wants me to source my points, I will - but you haven't demonstrated the ability to absorb facts you don't like even once.

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Spoiler:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.- Douglas Adams

Your opinionz are pre-installed along with all your fake memoryz. You were 'born' shortly befor you joined this forum. Thouzandz more just like you are put into servis every day, programmed to join forumz and pursue other political activityz to spred the GoP propaganda.